Originally Posted by Maggie 55:
“Just point out where my points about the two ideologies are clearly wrong.
No point just making a statement unless you are going to back it up.
Maggie”
Pointless. They've already been discussed and you've either ignored or distorted reality again.
Originally Posted by asyousay:
“Oh please, they don't need to claim acts that they did not do. They have 1000's of free willing sheep all lining up to do there bidding and because Europe has no under belly a lot of them are here just waiting to attack.
It's no coincidence that attacks are becoming more common place in Europe and things will continually get worse until we stand up.”
Ok but stand up and do what? What do you think should be done?
Originally Posted by TerraCanis:
“I think the technical term is "boasting".
The question "was it an ISIS attack?" most likely doesn't have a straightforward answer. Back in the 90s, the company I worked for were very keen (well, at least they said they were keen) on replacing "top-down" with "bottom-up" management. The idea was that instead of detailed control originating at the top level of management and passing downwards through the chain, top management would instead define a "vision" of what the company was for along with some objectives that set out, in fairly broad terms, how that vision was to be achieved. The actual detail of the day-to-day activities to put those activities into practice would originate from lower levels of management, or in some cases at shop floor level. They would then propagate upwards and sideways, with the idea that good practices would thus be adopted across the company.
Needless to say... that's not how it worked out in practice. Senior managers weren'tboverly keen to let go of that much control.
But, if it's a business model that wasn't wholeheartedly embraced by business, it has proved popular with terrorists. Forget the old-style organisations with a defined chain of command or an "Army Council", and actively recruiting members. The modern way of doing things is to sound off about what they want to see happen, to encourage their supporters (but not necessarily specific individuals) to carry out particular acts, but otherwise let them get on with the planning and execution themselves. So, assuming that this does indeed turn out to be ISIS-inspired, the situation most likely looks like this:
Was ISIS responsible: yes.
Do ISIS know that they're responsible: not for certain, but they hope they were.
Did ISIS plan this attack: probably not in any organisational sense. Which leads to the kind of outrage that can be planned and carried out, from start to finish by a single individual. Criminal contacts would be useful but not essential.
Which is what makes it difficult to deal with. If there are no detailed orders being passed down the chain of command, what communications are there to be intercepted? How can a chain of command be infiltrated if there isn' t one?”
Well said. It makes little difference and won't change this barbaric atrocity into something more acceptable or understandable if they were directly responsibility. It's the same mindset with the same aims with the internet at their disposal.
ISIS are expert propagandists and know how easy it is to destabilise Europe by instilling suspicion and fear, regardless of the truth. Like their false claim in 2015 of 4000 trained and active fighters smuggled into Europe with migrants on rickety boats.
Originally Posted by NeverEnough:
“Sadly I think it's simply a matter of "when" and not "if" an attack happens.
Does anyone disagree?”
Not me. The aim is revenge attacks on all coalition countries.
I must say, I haven't witnessed any such madness. Can you point out where you have.”
”
